Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
Mining Area. Photo b: ADY.
In response to the of the latest version of the Draft Bill on Minerals and Coal Mining (Draft Bill), which was widely disseminated by the government in January 2016, the Mining Advocacy Network (Jaringan Advokasi Tambang – Jatam) has raised a number of concerns relating to several provisions set out under the Draft Bill. These concerns center on the revocation of some 40 substantial articles which were originally incorporated in Law No. 4 of 2009on Minerals and Coal Mining (Mining Law).
Commenting in this issue, Jatam activist Ki Bagus Hadi Kusuma stated his firm belief that the revocation would eventually lead to a deficit as regards the right of public to participate in the mining sector. Moreover, the revocation may also potentially affect the entire licensing mechanism, as well as efforts at environmental protection, as it involves the repealing of several key provisions relating to these matters.
“Many have the overall impression that the government is actually planning to formulate a whole new law instead of revising the current mining law,” asserted Mr. Kusuma in Jakarta on Tuesday, 5 April 2016.
Mr. Kusuma further explained that there were three substantial reasons for opposing the proposed Draft Bill, as drawn up by the government. Firstly, the Draft Bill is substantially similar to the draft bill on minerals and coal which was proposed by the House of Representatives (House). Both draft bills aim to withdraw the authority of regency/municipality level governments over the management of mining activities located within their respective areas. This authority is then to be handed over to provincial governments and the relevant ministries.
Mr. Kusuma believes that any division of authority between central and regional government must conform to Law No. 23 of 2014on Regional Level Government. Mr. Kusuma also asserted that any delegation of licensing authorities must be formulated so as to anticipate possible overlaps, as regards authority over different areas of land, and also take into account proportional delegations of authority. Strict controls of law-enforcement mechanisms will also be vital, according to Mr. Kusuma.
A second problem with the government-proposed Draft Bill, according to Mr. Kusuma, is that it features a number of provisions which would see a relaxation of the various rules governing mineral export activities, as well as exemptions to the mandatory downstream obligation. This is in contrast with the current regime, which mandates that mining companies should process or purify mineral ores domestically. Furthermore, the Draft Bill states that these more lenient provisions will come into force five years following the passage of the Draft Bill. This presumably means in 2021, the same time that PT Freeport Indonesia’s contract with the government ends.
“I don’t know whether this is purely coincidental or whether things have been planned this way. Nonetheless, the obvious indications are that the Draft Bill has been heavily influenced by major corporate interests,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
Mr. Kusuma also pointed to a third problem with the Draft Bill, namely that aside from many provisions which appear to facilitate the interests of major corporations, the Draft Bill deliberation process itself is also shrouded in mystery. Mr. Kusuma believes that such secrecy comes down to ensuring that the general public has limited access to the Draft Bill discussions.
Indeed, Mr. Kusuma also asserted that the Draft Bill on Mining and Coal proposed by the House is far more progressive when it comes to social protections than the government-proposed Draft Bill is. This belief is grounded in the fact that the House’s Draft Bill incorporates a provision on land compensation for the general public, and also allows the general public to file lawsuits relating to any losses that they may suffer as a result of mining activities. Furthermore, the House’s version of the Draft Bill also encompassed a mechanism that involved a license-application review process by the general public, even to the point where the public could potentially reject any license which has been issued.
However, Mr. Kusuma has also admitted that the House-proposed Draft Bill has its own negative points. For example, this version of the bill stipulates that the mandatory divestment obligation will be further regulated under a separate law. Mr. Kusuma believes that this is unnecessary and that there is no need to regulate specific issues such as divestment under a law or other regulation of a similar level.
“Moreover, the Draft Bill proposed by the House also stipulates that the new mandatory divestment obligation will come into force five years after the passage of the Draft Bill into law. It has become apparent then that the Draft Bill is being influenced by third-party interests,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
For all of the above reasons, Mr. Kusuma has revealed that his institution, Jatam, will be joining forces with a number of NGOs currently grouped under the Public Coalition for Mining Law Advocacy banner in order to criticize the existing Draft Bill. One such strategy here will involve the formulation of a policy letter, which will be forwarded to the government. Another approach will be to draw up a new inventory of problems (Daftar Inventarisasi Masalah – “DIM”), which the government and House could refer to when deliberating the draft bill.
“Our goal is to ensure that the Mining Law which ultimately passes will offer proper environmental and social protections,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L. Makmur
Mining Area. Photo b: ADY.
In response to the of the latest version of the Draft Bill on Minerals and Coal Mining (Draft Bill), which was widely disseminated by the government in January 2016, the Mining Advocacy Network (Jaringan Advokasi Tambang – Jatam) has raised a number of concerns relating to several provisions set out under the Draft Bill. These concerns center on the revocation of some 40 substantial articles which were originally incorporated in Law No. 4 of 2009on Minerals and Coal Mining (Mining Law).
Commenting in this issue, Jatam activist Ki Bagus Hadi Kusuma stated his firm belief that the revocation would eventually lead to a deficit as regards the right of public to participate in the mining sector. Moreover, the revocation may also potentially affect the entire licensing mechanism, as well as efforts at environmental protection, as it involves the repealing of several key provisions relating to these matters.
“Many have the overall impression that the government is actually planning to formulate a whole new law instead of revising the current mining law,” asserted Mr. Kusuma in Jakarta on Tuesday, 5 April 2016.
Mr. Kusuma further explained that there were three substantial reasons for opposing the proposed Draft Bill, as drawn up by the government. Firstly, the Draft Bill is substantially similar to the draft bill on minerals and coal which was proposed by the House of Representatives (House). Both draft bills aim to withdraw the authority of regency/municipality level governments over the management of mining activities located within their respective areas. This authority is then to be handed over to provincial governments and the relevant ministries.
Mr. Kusuma believes that any division of authority between central and regional government must conform to Law No. 23 of 2014on Regional Level Government. Mr. Kusuma also asserted that any delegation of licensing authorities must be formulated so as to anticipate possible overlaps, as regards authority over different areas of land, and also take into account proportional delegations of authority. Strict controls of law-enforcement mechanisms will also be vital, according to Mr. Kusuma.
A second problem with the government-proposed Draft Bill, according to Mr. Kusuma, is that it features a number of provisions which would see a relaxation of the various rules governing mineral export activities, as well as exemptions to the mandatory downstream obligation. This is in contrast with the current regime, which mandates that mining companies should process or purify mineral ores domestically. Furthermore, the Draft Bill states that these more lenient provisions will come into force five years following the passage of the Draft Bill. This presumably means in 2021, the same time that PT Freeport Indonesia’s contract with the government ends.
“I don’t know whether this is purely coincidental or whether things have been planned this way. Nonetheless, the obvious indications are that the Draft Bill has been heavily influenced by major corporate interests,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
Mr. Kusuma also pointed to a third problem with the Draft Bill, namely that aside from many provisions which appear to facilitate the interests of major corporations, the Draft Bill deliberation process itself is also shrouded in mystery. Mr. Kusuma believes that such secrecy comes down to ensuring that the general public has limited access to the Draft Bill discussions.
Indeed, Mr. Kusuma also asserted that the Draft Bill on Mining and Coal proposed by the House is far more progressive when it comes to social protections than the government-proposed Draft Bill is. This belief is grounded in the fact that the House’s Draft Bill incorporates a provision on land compensation for the general public, and also allows the general public to file lawsuits relating to any losses that they may suffer as a result of mining activities. Furthermore, the House’s version of the Draft Bill also encompassed a mechanism that involved a license-application review process by the general public, even to the point where the public could potentially reject any license which has been issued.
However, Mr. Kusuma has also admitted that the House-proposed Draft Bill has its own negative points. For example, this version of the bill stipulates that the mandatory divestment obligation will be further regulated under a separate law. Mr. Kusuma believes that this is unnecessary and that there is no need to regulate specific issues such as divestment under a law or other regulation of a similar level.
“Moreover, the Draft Bill proposed by the House also stipulates that the new mandatory divestment obligation will come into force five years after the passage of the Draft Bill into law. It has become apparent then that the Draft Bill is being influenced by third-party interests,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
For all of the above reasons, Mr. Kusuma has revealed that his institution, Jatam, will be joining forces with a number of NGOs currently grouped under the Public Coalition for Mining Law Advocacy banner in order to criticize the existing Draft Bill. One such strategy here will involve the formulation of a policy letter, which will be forwarded to the government. Another approach will be to draw up a new inventory of problems (Daftar Inventarisasi Masalah – “DIM”), which the government and House could refer to when deliberating the draft bill.
“Our goal is to ensure that the Mining Law which ultimately passes will offer proper environmental and social protections,” asserted Mr. Kusuma.
(rfs/sp)